civilized ku # 36 ~ a walk in the forest #4
Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 08:00AM 
Traces and evidence of a different world • click to embiggenYesterday, James Robinson wrote (in part) -'There's no doubt that I bring my own experiences with decay to these photos. I have held jobs that revolved around removing/replacing dacay. Those jobs had a major impact on my life and the lives of the individuals I worked with ... Therefore there is a profound love/hate relationship for me with these photographs that I am so drawn to ... I'm angry at the environmental impact and the toll most likely paid by the workers with their immediate and long-term health. But I think that is what defines true art for me now--gritty reality that makes you uncomfortable because you are so drawn to it and hopefully even a little pissed off by it.'
Tim Kingston also mentioned that he felt '... Sorrow, perhaps , not just for the environmental problems to come, as this scene decays, but a sense of sorrow for the lives forgotten and all the hardship they experienced.'
Both of these comments reflect a sense of the 'political' meaning that can be found in these pictures if one's sense and sensibilities are so inclined to 'find' them. If not, they may be just visually interesting pictures of decay. For me, the pictures satisify both my intents (in making) and my motivations (for making).
Recently, on another site that shall remain nameless, the author suggested that he tends to not like art that is politically motivated because, for the most part, once the 'political' is removed from the equation, what remains is generally 'awful'.
IMO, this notion is flawed for two primary reasons -
1) It suggests that some art is politicial and some is not - at least by intent. While that is true enough, it really doesn't address the fact all art is political whether the intent is there or not. All art works either in service of or as a challenge to the status quo/prevailing cultural paradigm. One way or another it's part of the language of meaning of any picture.
2) It also suggests a notion of 'compartmentalization' of intent and effect - that somehow the 'lanauage of meaning' can be separated from the work itself. That the picture can be stripped of that language and then somehow be evaluated as an object devoid of meaning. This notion is pure rubbish - it suggests that the author has little understanding of what constitutes good/great Art.
Art is art with meaning.
PS - mucho thanks to those have 'given back' to me with comments and feedback on this series of pictures.
Reader Comments (5)
Mark, I really like this series for a couple of reasons.
First, it reminds me of a series a did years ago in an abandoned mill in RI on the Blackstone river.
Second, I'm doing a series now about the effects of the construction of a new highway here in San Cristobal on the environment and the effect of the environment on the road.
I'd have to take issue with those that think these are only political. I think if you strip away the political meanings from your decay series or from the erosion series I'm doing there is still a beauty underneath. Some have commented on the long term and short term effects that mankind's disregard has had on nature. There's a flip side of this too. One of the things I'm interested in is how nature affects the works of man. Your series s of a mill, which cost a lot of tie and money to build and now is disappearing nto the wilderness it was carved out of is a good example of this. There's a beauty there in the way that nature is reclaiming this space.
the author suggested that he tends to not like art that is politically motivated because, for the most part, once the 'political' is removed from the equation, what remains is generally 'awful'.
if that's the case, the author apparently doesn't understand art OR politics...
as you say, all art is political (as is all life)
Quote from Mark -
"All art works either in service of or as a challenge to the status quo / prevailing cultural paradigm. One way or another it's part of the language of meaning of any picture".
Horse-pucky. Sadly, you've once again lapsed into making statements that simply echo restrictive postmodernist sentiment. The above is one of those "either / or" proclamations that, when translated, simply means that "you're either with me or against me". There ain't no middle ground here, folks, so pick your side carefully. This is a fight to the (cultural) death!
Besides, the "nameless" blogger - someone you seem to thoroughly enjoy crossing swords with - was speaking specifically about what he called "agenda art". That is, artists who create something purely for the purpose of making a political statement of some kind. His observations in that context, were, I think, entirely correct. I think you reracted simply because his comments hit close to home.
I'm reading Steve Edwards Photography, A Very Short Introduction. I think his chapter on Fantasy and Memory tie into this series of images very well. Although I think he is talking more about images that we actually know from the past, but he also writes about involuntary memory. Somehow these images, many images of decaying places, bring to mind our own losses. Places from our past that are now in decay and vandalized. We connect and feel melancholic over the death and loss in our own lives or in our towns or in our nation.
I'm with Paul Maxim in saying beware dogmatic dichotomies. On the other hand, I would admit that even, say, picture postcards, however non-political by intention, can have a definitely political effect in whispering soothingly that all is beautiful and well with the world. It isn't the photographer's intention alone that determines how political an image might be once it's out there.